Question for the NFL: How Stupid Do You Think We Are?

Taking a break from the usual New York Giants cocksuckery, Peter King posits in his column that the NFL commissioner is going to assure that the indictment of Michael Vick "is not going to be the Duke lacrosse case."

Below is the text of my email to Peter King:

"This is not going to be the Duke lacrosse case."

Could you please explain to your readers how you came to draw that parallel, other than the fact that they were both indictments involving athletes?

The probability of Vick is innocent of being part of a (particularly disgusting) criminal enterprise is asymptotically approaching zero. This is not a "he-said-she-said" sexual assault charge, nor the standard NFL "altercation outside of a nightclub that may or may not have been self defense" rap. This is a "found 54 dead dogs buried in your yard, and eyewitnesses have placed you at the scene of the crime" case.

I believe that you, Sir, know the difference between this and the Duke Lacrosse team case. I also believe that Goodell knows the difference, and I find it easier to credit you both with cynicism rather than credulity.

I think you and your NFL friends are in for a shock. Americans love football, but they love dogs, too. I don't even particularly like dogs, but I've already decided the NFL won't get a cent of mine (goodbye Sunday Ticket) until Vick is banned from the game.

After further review:

I'd like to credit the Bush Administration for cultivating a culture of implausible deniability in our nation. Yes, Clinton lied, but at least he didn't keep denying his wrongdoing once he was busted.